More Case-Hirono debates ideal but only if substantial

Debates among candidates more often than not seem to be a twisted form of entertainment for political junkies. For the news organizations that live and breathe for them through election cycles, debates offer bales of fodder for gotcha moments and flip-flop episodes and, on noble occasions, consideration of serious insight.

For voters who have already made up their minds, debates can confirm their choices. For the inquisitively undecided, debates present opportunities to inspect candidates’ outlooks, temperament and ideas.

I suspect, however, that for the majority of people, these contests of words are incidental public exhibitions, which is regrettable.

By the end of the gazillion Republican presidential debates that began nearly a year ago, there seemed to be little left to learn from silly quibbling, hemming and hawing and fiction-based criticism candidates flung at each other repeatedly.

That’s because the debates weren’t really debates, but merely instances for carefully vetted and formulated sound bites easily memorized for rattling off before the red light began flashing a two-minute warning.

Ed Case is frustrated because Mazie Hirono has declined to step on stage with him for more than a handful of appearances as they vie for the chance to be the Democratic candidate for a U.S. Senate seat. The schedule of five events Hirono has agreed to consists of three forums and just two debates. It is doubtful even the two described as debates will include the kind of back-and-forth exchange of words, propositions and opinions worthy of voters’ time and attention.

Case could greatly benefit from a genuine debate. He is articulate and self-assured, and without the financial advantages Hirono has, he could use the free exposure debates would present.

But Hirono’s no slouch went it comes to public speaking. She doesn’t have the fiery flair other candidates easily flaunt. Her appeal is an amiable and sincere disposition but, when pricked, she reveals an impressive steely determination.

In his argument for debates, Case contends that the ability to “advocate, discuss and decide” serves lawmakers well in the Senate, which he describes earnestly as  “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” Having already served in the U.S. House, he well knows that Congress doesn’t quite work that way, that though that is the ideal, decisions one member makes are mostly overwhelmed by what the majority wants, that policy rests in politics, not in shining principles.

Case is described as moderate; Hirono, liberal. Neither makes excuses for their perspectives. Voters would profit from hearing how they would reach their goals, and true debates — without arbitrary time limits, with allowances for candidates to address each other, to question impractical notions and to challenge viability of proposals, and with questions from informed voters instead of the usual political experts — would merit attention.

Otherwise, they would be theater.

———

Cynthia Oi can be reached at coi@staradvertiser.com.